*1 plaintiff’s susceptible basic was allegation many interpretations. to be being This the relief so, against afforded defendants is not final judgment plaintiff. judgment on the entry pleadings, improper.* was therefore, and remanded procedendo.
Reversed with a * present disposition prejudice plaintiff’s Our is without re- (in brief) quest for leave his to amend. Appellant.
Commonwealth v. Giaccio, *2 April Argued 1964. Before Cohen, C. J., 22, Bell, O’Brien JJ. Eagen, Roberts, ap- for him C. Paul, with James N. Hearn, Peter pellant. Attorney, Assistant District with Halsted, S.
John Halpren, Attorney, Com- District for J. Samuel appellee. monwealth, July 1964: 6, Opinion Mr. Justice Roberts, interpretations of current the context
In the
the United States
Com-
and of this
Constitutions
to declare
are asked
invalid the Act
we
monwealth,
March
P. L.
31,
19 P.S.
§1222,1
§62,
permits the
defend-
imposition
of costs
ants
The Act specifically
misdemeanors.2
“In
provides:
all
cases of felony excepted,
prosecutions,
if the bill of indictment
ignoramus,
shall be returned
grand jury returning
shall decide
same
on such
certify
prosecu-
bill whether
or
county
tor shall
cases
pay the costs
and in all
prosecution;
acquittals
petit
on indictments
offenses
de-
shall
aforesaid,
jury trying
same
by their
termine,
whether
or
verdict,
county,
or
shall
prosecutor,
pay the costs,
whether
same shall be
apportioned between
prosecutor
and the
propor-
what
defendant,
and the
tions;
so
grand
jury,
petit,
determining,
*3
1
8, 1804, 4
This Act
taken from
December
was
the Act of
204, §§1,
12, 1859,
April
L.
2
Sm.
and the Act of
P.D. 528.
2
validity
Superior Court,
case,
The
this
that
observed
by
numerous
of the Act has been
it
Court on
sustained
this
Judge Woodside,
majority,
occasions.
for the
noted:
validity
upon
acquitted
imposing
“The
of a statute
costs
Supreme
v.
was
in Commonwealth
before the
Court
Tilghman,
(1818),
prophe
4 &
where Mr. Justice Gibson
S. R. 127
highly
provision
‘prove
would
that
in the Act of
sied
1804
may appear unjust.’
though it,
view,
One
‘at
even
first
beneficial’
years
Judge Kelleb,
speaking
thirteen
later
hundred
imposing
Court,
provision
defend
said of the
costs
jurisdictions
may appear
ants,
to
the course
‘However anomalous
procedure,
of this Commonwealth
is the law
with our
unfamiliar
justice.’
Cohen, 102
v.
Commonwealth
it works substantial
(1931).
397, 401,
two
Superior
Between
A. 32
these
Ct.
Pa.
questioned
statutory provision
was examined
here
decisions
many
Harger
approved
courts,
v.
appellate
use
times:
and its
(1849)
Washington Co.,
;
v.
Baldwin
The Commonwealth *4 This reinstated “sentence.” and reversed which allocatur. Court granted chal- general makes the constitutional
Appellant principles basic of Act violates fairness, lenge is substantively. The statute procedurally both in sufficient standards. lacking as vague attacked the Act an improper delega- is further urged It is apparently 3 However, appellant’s conduct an did constitute assault.
148 legislative power Article of of tion in contravention Pennsylvania. It also of is of II, §1, Constitution protection equal contended that the Act violates the of Constitu- clause the Fourteenth Amendment to the treat tion of not United States because it does summary of of offenses those felonies or like manner. important
At the it is as did outset, note, penal Superior not Act of 1860 is Court, language very early notwith some in the cases statute, standing. penal Imposition part costs is not imposed ty con is a even cases where there those pay criminal “. in a [A] viction. . . direction to part proceeding in is not is an sentence, Dunleavy, judgment: cident Commonwealth v. Superior v. 16 Pa. Ct. 380. And see Commonwealth Superior 92 238. Costs Pa. Ct. A. 2d Moore, 27, part penalty imposed by do not form a statutes providing punishment of for the criminal offenses, Superior Pa. 202, Commonwealth v. Ct. Cauffiel, pardon liability for the remains after even Cope Pa. executive: v. Commonwealth, Schuylkill County Reifsnyder, 446.” v. 46 Pa. 297; Ct. Soudani, Commonwealth Pa. 165 A. 2d 355-56, empowers court true that the statute
While “pass authority sentence to that must effect,” pre- language immediately read with the which it. it is clear that the term “sen- So considered, cedes strictly not technical tence” is used its sense as pronouncement legal to the accused of the con- formal guilt.4 merely adjudica- sequences It of his means judgment formally pro “The be defined: “Sentence” judge defendant after con the court his nounced prosecution, awarding punishment in a criminal viction declaring formally legal Judgment to accused conse inflicted. guilt confessed or he has of which he been quences has
144 after
tion in statute compliance the court with the by defendant the that or the jury’s prosecutor the finding meaning That shall costs. is the pay legislative evi- phrase “pass unmistakably the sentence” is made impose the to granted dent the discretion to also not acquitted costs the defendant only who not even with prosecutor charged is criminal should grand offense. Moreover, determine return a it shall bill also “ignoramus,” costs. prosecutor whether shall county pay sen- phrase “pass We conclude, therefore, as used is with tence,” statute, synonymous of the court to for costs authority judgment asess civil cases.5 as in civil when imposed
Just
cases may
permitted
but rather
ever
not as
penalty
statute,
compensation to
for
as
a litigant
too,
expenses,6 so,
compensation
par
costs under this statute
represent
tial
to the
for
incurred
county
expenses
reimbursement
prosecution.
meaning.”
properly
convicted. The word is
confined to this
Dictionary,
(4th
1951).
Black’s Law
1528
ed.
question
validity
do not have before
We
us
portion
of the Act which
for enforcement of the collec
calls
by imprisonment.
It
tion
is sufficient
to note
security
provide
pay
a defendant
the costs or
where
refuses
therefor, his confinement is the result of the
exercise of its
court’s
contempt.
power
punish
As the
Court observed: “But
may
pay
pay
costs,
if
be exonerated from
he is unable to
he
insolvency
procedure
ing
proceeding under
them
act. This
prison
only
after he has been committed to
available to
not
Thus,
costs,
pay
but also before he is committed.
failure
imposed
whom costs have been
undergo
discharged
paying
having
without
from
them
Kishbaugh’s Petition,
imprisonment.
135 Pa.
A. 1063
actual
Fines, Costs, etc.,
;
(1890)
Pa. D. &
In re: Collection
C.
(1950).”
469, 471
Lineberger,
Pennsyl
(1872) Laub,
;
Nothing here quarter courts of sessions machinery of costs. disposition litigant
“The of imposition upon costs successful In is not of unknown the courts Pennsylvania. orphans’ and appeal equity, court, re- appellate justice be courts, placed costs where may quires them to even be, though they placed party. practice procedure plac- successful and of The com- ing defendant is not who innocent or salutary, fault has been a pletely without law.” way effective the criminal administering Commonwealth v. King, 33 Pa. D. & C. 2d to the first issue Turning then, presented, directly appellant asserts that the Act is vague lacking relies appropriate appellant For standards. support, wherein declared penal decisions statutes have been do not al- invalid. We here have such As statute. civil imposition is, ready noted, reality, do attempts Nor have a nature. we statute which an offense without properly defining create conduct. Neither the stat- prohibited (or required) is and uncertain or in fail- vague defective ute otherwise an accused of the acts the results ing apprise imposition costs. See Chester v. justify may which 2d 184 A. 257 (1962). Pa. 350, Elam, provisions notice constitute clear The the statute prosecutor and inform both may incidentally matter of costs be determined guilt Court basic issue innocence. quite properly trial observed: “Of costs of a course, imposed upon not cannot a defendant for conduct concerning prosecution, related to the nor for conduct jury.” there no which relevant evidence before the Assuming that there must a standard exist are incur a defendant will know that he we costs, requirement. that the Act of satisfied 1860 fulfills this It is clear that the Act cannot be read itself, together particular be considered statute must creating with the *7 circum- the substantive offense and all the presented jury. trial stances to the A defendant on charge for a misdemeanor knows the he must meet and may in the event of a he have knows that, conviction, pay By costs as well. Act of a defendant 1860, placed acquitted, may also if have notice that he part pay prosecution. all the costs of the judicial By interpretation, Com- of this courts applied century for monwealth over a and a half have a standard reasonableness on the issue costs. applied essentially standard is no different from objec- by equity adequately court of a and meets the appellant. charged by tions raised If a defendant is brought a with a misdemeanor and is and trial, prima only facie case is made but the finds out, reprehensible acts or misconduct which fall short responsible charged, may offense he be held prosecution gave if the costs his misconduct rise it.7 charged
A defendant with a misdemeanor also proves even if the Commonwealth knows that its case matter, practical if the Commonwealth As a fails to establish may case, discharged prima facie the defendant be on demurrer upon may imposed him. no costs and against jury may return- act in his favor still him, plus guilty pay ing costs” of “not a verdict again.” Indeed, admonition “but don’t do it silent hope find. it is often his fervent that the will so experi Judge highly President J. Frank Graff, very passing judge, enced and able trial King, supra, & C. Pa. D. issue Commonwealth v. (1963), appropriately 2d at 244 held: “The standard placed upon must which costs the defendant particular arise out of factual case trial. aAs experience juries from vast in the trial of matter, cases, adjudge are reluctant occasions to guilty, making and seek the alternative of not a record against requiring pay be him, the costs, reprehensible cause of his Constitution conduct. The require impossible does not all it re standards; quires language conveys sufficiently is that the defi warning prescribed nite as to the when meas conduct, practice: understanding ured common Both supra United States, [354 U. S. 77 S. Ct. 1304, (1957)]....” L. Ed. 2d 1498 are
We the Act of satisfied, therefore, comports process applied, as construed and with due acceptable constitutionally funda- and is law mentally fair. *8 pro-
Appellant contends that the statute denies process only hearing cedural due contem- because the plated the trial of there is the substantive offense and opportunity to on is not “defend” the issue of costs. argument, appellant By a concedes that there is hearing apparently but Act believes that the afforded, separate provide hearing for a of should the matter The trial on the offers costs. substantive offense opportunity ample to defend on the that defend- basis guilty neither a nor conduct warrants verdict of ant’s language Superior imposition In of costs. the of the opportunity “He has to be heard on the Court: based is jury of the The decision of costs. question right a has it. The defendant heard evidence question of the court on the charge question to challenge subsequently right He has the costs. arbi- to challenge any of the costs taxed, amount in the costs imposing verdict trary him.” in appellant’s argument no merit also find
We
delegation
an unconstitutional
of 1860 is
the Act
ac-
in full
are
We
judiciary.
power
legislative
is-
of that
treatment
Court’s
Superior
with the
cord
disposition
authorizing
“It
is obvious
sue:
power
delegated
has not
the legislature
of costs,
to deter-
power
but only
make
law,
law
things
fact
state
mine some
Ap-
do. Locke’s
This it
depend.
action
makes its
supra,
Nester Appeal,
(1873);
72 Pa.
491,
peal,
In the instant it situation, prosecutions importance are public such As Commonwealth is to bear the thereof. willing im- there is no summary offenses, pose costs. Legis- exclusively
Classification a task for the only lature. Our is to determine whether inquiry lacking and classification is patently arbitrary utterly Milk Control justification. rational Commission Pa. 2d 198 A. Battista, created Act of not vio- classification 1860 does by permitted late this and it must be to stand. standard, Appellant has failed to meet his burden heavy of 1860 and palpably Act proving clearly, Milk violates Constitution. Control Com- plainly v. Battista, supra. mission com- share the Court’s concluding
We
provision
has
ment : “The
here attacked
statutory
enacted
it has twice been
legislature;
thrice been
been
Supreme
Court;
held constitutional
has
applied
century
construed
tested,
examined,
ap-
it is believed
able trial and
half;
many
to do substantial
judges
it con-
pellate
justice;
court
realistic
answer
practical
prob-
to the
stitutes
*10
justify
find no
that would
lem of costs. We can
reason
it unconstitutional.”
our holding
Court is affirmed.
Superior
The order
Opinion
Dissenting
Mr.
Cohen:
Justice
Judge
I
adopt
opinion
would
dissenting
Ct.
Superior
202 Pa.